FREE SPEECH AND YOUR LIFE
As you read this chapter in The Media in Your Life, think about how and why governments have come to restrain free speech at different times in different societies. Can you think of examples based on your experiences that might lead to a discussion of how free speech is important to your life as a student?
The poll questions for this chapter are based on examples where speech has been restricted, or been freed from restrictions. In most of these cases--and perhaps in your own examples--governments tend to give one of five reasons for regulating speech or communication:
- Economic safety of the nation/region.
- A product or company has a negative impact on society.
- A product or company has a negative impact on individuals that outweighs benefits to society.
- To preserve security during war.
- Government regulation is needed to preserve government power.
Do any free-speech examples based on your personal knowledge fit into one these five categories ? Here are some examples that will let you register your views on free speech issues:
Four Examples Involving Efforts to Restrict Freedom of Speech
(Read each example, click on the link to register your opinion).
Example 1: General William Westmoreland, the commander of U.S. troops in Vietnam, sued CBS for saying in 1982 that he had deceived his superiors about enemy strength in the Vietnam War. General Westmoreland, in an out of court settlement, got CBS to pay his legal expenses and agree to apologize for errors in the report.
Why do you think Westmoreland got CBS to apologize?
Example 2: U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan wrote in the New York Times v. Sullivan case about the importance of a free and open intellectual market. The court ruled that the State of Alabama could not restrict an advertisement that was sharply critical of the State's actions in a civil-rights clash.
Why do you think Alabama wanted to restrict speech in this case? Select the most likely reason.
Example 3: U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan said the Sullivan case had to be considered "against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open." The court said such debate could only be restricted when there was proof that statements were made with actual malice, or "knowledge that information is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
Example 4: The actual malice rule described in Example 3 also applies to public figures. Dennis Rodman, a basketball professional, Madonna, a singer, and Clarence Page, a newspaper columnist, are all public figures because they have voluntarily sought the attention of the media to place themselves before the public. Public figures trying to win libel suits must prove statements were made with actual malice, or "knowledge that information is false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not."
How Should Speech Be Regulated?
The regulation of speech and communication is always complex because it involves the rights of society versus the rights of individuals. Now, regulation must cope with rapid changes in technologies and economic factors. Here are three issues that remain unresolved. Where do YOU stand?
Issue 1: How will governments regulate the delivery of information across computer networks that span the globe, making what once was shared by members of a community available people around the world? For example, should U.S. obscenity regulations be applied to an obscene World Wide Web site that is posted in another country?
Issue 2: How does regulation balance between the right of free expression and societal concerns about media depictions of violence and sexual activity? For example, should the V-chip or some other screening device be required for Internet reception?
Issue 3: Are journalists' rights to access compatible with the public's right to privacy and freedom from libel? For example, should reporters be free from restrictions when trying to access the private residences of voluntarily public figures (such as Michael Jackson or the late Princess Diana) because the public has a "right to know"?